Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
Case Summaries
Education
[10/10]
S.E. v. Grant County Bd. of Educ. In a claim against school officials in response to seventh-grader's sharing of prescription medicine with fellow students, grant of qualified immunity to individual defendants and summary judgment for defendant school district is affirmed where: 1) Heck v. Humphrey is inapplicable and posed no bar to plaintiffs' claims; 2) assistant principal's actions did not constitute violations of either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments; and 3) "[i]f the administrative review procedures available to [plaintiff's] family had been utilized, the court below would have had a factual record to weigh in deciding whether or not the [504] Plan had been implemented" and the district court correctly dismissed claim regarding a Section 504 Plan without prejudice.
[10/09]
Kettenring v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. In a class action lawsuit alleging that the compensation structure of defendant-school district violated state minimum wage laws, denial of plaintiff's writ of mandate challenging trial court decision that Labor Code's minimum wage provisions did not apply to defendant, is affirmed where: 1) adult education teachers fall within the professional exemption to Wage Order 4-2001; and 2) the salary structure did not violate Education Code section 45025, which requires proportional compensation for part-time employees.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[10/06]
Cuonzo v. Shore In a suit by the estate of a passenger killed in an automobile accident, jury verdict finding neither driver negligent and denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial are affirmed where: 1) the jury could reasonably have found that the evidence was balanced and that plaintiff had failed to carry its burden of proof that one or both drivers were negligent, despite the fact that the accident was clearly the result of the negligence of at least one party; and 2) the exclusion of photographs of the accident scene was within the discretion of the trial court.
[08/29]
Kerlin v. Sauceda In a suit alleging that defendant defrauded plaintiffs of oil and gas royalties and other interests in Padre Island, judgments for plaintiffs are reversed as time-barred where: 1) plaintiffs could have discovered defendant's wrongdoing through reasonable diligence and were not entitled to tolling of the running of limitations on that basis; and 2) defendant was present in the state, by virtue of doing business there, during all of the alleged wrongdoing, and statutory tolling therefore did not apply. (Revised opinion)
More...
